Trial Update Day Two

All updates from the United Citizens Against Police Violence page on Facebook.

Champommier Trial Update- Day Two

Morning: Drug Enforcement Agency Officer (“Agent”) alleged to have been responsible for Champommier's killing continued testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the events of the evening in question, including confirming that no identifying garb was worn by any member of the task force that could have served to warn the public of law enforcement presence in the public parking lot surrounded by several eateries. Agent testified that it is not unusual for law enforcement to use public areas for debriefings following operations but that such debriefings are to be done in a manner which considers protecting the public and, when possible, out of public view.

Agent gave testimony as to his "perception" of the events that included the alleged contact between Champommier's car and pedestrian Deputy Sheriff ("Deputy") that was stated by the Agent as providing the justification for use of deadly force. 

Agent added to testimony given by LAPD detective given on Day One of the trial describing a detention of a person ("Citizen"), whom Champommier had met online the previous night and had gone to the area to meet. While attempting to locate Champommier, Citizen, who had been looking for Champommier’s car, was contacted by agents of the task force for “acting suspiciously” and for allegedly “looking into the cars” belonging to task force members. Agent testified that two members detained Citizen and appeared to have Citizen contained/controlled. At this time, Deputy Sheriff (“Deputy”) approached Citizen, and the two task force members detaining him, with his service revolver drawn and pointing in the direction of not only Citizen but also the two task force members. Agent stated that he did not feel this to have been unsafe or dangerous. 

Shortly thereafter, Agent testified to the contact between Champommier and Deputy. This was observed by Agent from a distance of approximately 8-10 feet beyond Champommier’s car in the direction the car was facing. Agent testified the contact occurred on the extreme driver's side of the car's hood and further described the Deputy as having been lifted in such a way that Deputy was parallel to the height of the roof of the car before landing on his left side on the car's hood with gun still in hand.

However, Agent’s recollection of Deputy’s time on the hood and dismounting from the hood of Champommier’s car was poor and could not be established, despite being within a few feet of both Champommier and Deputy. Agent testified that events “happened so fast” and that there was “no time to think”. Agent testified that Deputy was still on the hood of the car as the car drove past and still fired his weapon in the direction of Champommier and Deputy, allegedly still on the hood of Champommier’s car. 

Agent testified to thinking that shortly after Champommier’s car initially contacted Deputy that Agent had entertained the notion that said contact might have been accidental but that Champommier’s alleged acceleration following the contact with Deputy brought about fear for Deputy’s safety and necessitated use of deadly force. Agent then testified that he felt Champommier intended to injure Deputy and that Agent also feared that Champommier would injure him, despite testifying that he was never in the car’s path.

Coroner testified to injuries sustained by Champommier, stating that a single bullet had entered the left arm, traversing his chest cavity, exiting his right arm.

Plaintiffs called ballistics expert who testified his opinion as to the number of bullets, their trajectories, and the likely scenario by which the shots were rendered and by whom. The amount of time estimated to formulate the need to use deadly force (“perception of need” + “decision to execute”) and the time to mechanically implement the decision to use deadly force (unholstering weapon and discharging it) was estimated to be anywhere from 3-5 seconds. Ballistics expert for the plaintiffs used several position distances occupied by Agent to the position Champommier occupied behind the wheel of his car. This information was then corresponded with the time estimated to execute use of deadly force (i.e., perception + decision + mechanical implementation) to determine that Champommier’s car was either fully stopped or barely moving, but not moving more than 5 m.p.h. at the time of the shooting. (This, of course, stands in stark contrast to law enforcement reports of Champommier’s car traveling at a high rate of speed and, in fact, accelerating into Deputy.)

Lastly, audio recording of Citizen conducted by LA County Sheriff’s investigators and obtained the morning following Champommier’s killing was played. Citizen described having been accosted by an unidentified group of males, describing them as “a bunch of rednecks” that he felt were about to rob him or beat him up. Citizen stated that he was accosted and was initially acting in self defense to avoid what he felt was unlawful contact until a badge was produced, at which point Citizen stated that he “complied fully” with all directives issued. It was at this time that Champommier’s car appeared to make contact with Deputy, whom Citizen described as having “stepped into” the path of the car. Citizen stated that he thought the driver, whom he did not know to be Champommier – the person he was there to meet- was simply trying to escape an apparently dangerous scene consisting of plainclothes law enforcement agents with guns drawn and who were, essentially, indistinguishable from gangsters. Citizen repeatedly stated that video cameras must have recorded the events and would corroborate his version of events as truthful.

To be continued.....